Last week, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made a startling change to military policy when he declared that women would now be able to serve on the front lines of combat. Progressives claimed the move was a giant leap forward for equality, but Glenn didn’t see it that way.

The military isn’t built to be a beacon of equality – it’s meant to be the line of defense between America and it’s enemies. The objective is to win, not give every person an equal chance to play on the field.

Women are already bravely serving in our armed forces as pilots, medics, strategy and a wide range of other capacities. But should they be made combat soldiers, where there are intense physical requirements meant to ensure only the best and most capable are in those roles? Glenn said that tossing women into close quarter combat doesn’t make any sense, and that shaping military policy to fit political agendas only hurts the military and gets people killed.

TheBlaze conducted a poll that had more than 150,000 responses to 40 questions dealing with the new policy and entering women into selective service. Participants were 65% male and 35% female.

The results?

Glenn invited a panel of experts onto the panel to discuss the issue:

Your browser does not support iframes.

Your browser does not support iframes.

The ‘that guy’ jar is filling up at an incredible rate and it doesn’t look like it will slow down anytime soon. Glenn and all air staff on the radio program have been banned from saying the President’s name on air – if they do it is a $20 fine. The worst offender by far is Glenn himself — he became frustrated with his own rule on radio today.

Your browser does not support iframes.

Al Gore has been making the media rounds to promote his latest exciting book about the future or something – but his vision reeks of the disturbing science of eugenics. Yes, the ‘science’ progressives of the early 20th century promoted that featured breeding ‘undesirables’ out of existence – Al Gore is bringing it back!

On Morning Joe, Gore told the MSNBC hosts:

The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, wait a minute, not too fast.

“Do you know what this is? Do you know where this philosophy comes from?” Glenn said. “I can take out the books. You know what? I wonder if I have them here or at the library at home. I can take out the eugenics books that he is quoting, he is quoting from right now. Whether he knows it or not. This is genetics. This is eugenics nonsense that was discredited in World War II. This stuff, this stuff is extraordinarily dangerous.”

“This is extraordinarily dangerous. This is the most dangerous ‑‑ look, we’ve been talking about abortion, we’ve been talking about the sanctity of life, we’ve been talking about all these things. But I’m telling you this is a gigantic warning sign. Because now you’re ‑‑ now you’re taking it on political philosophy. And now you’re saying that that is now genetic, and we all know ‑‑ and what he’s saying is that if you are a liberal, you want to ‑‑ you want to push forward. But you’re an Neander ‑‑ you are born and termed at birth to be a Neanderthal and be a conservative and say you want to harm progress.”

“Listen what they’re doing. They are devaluing life, they are devaluing all life. You just had last week saying all life isn’t equal, all people are not created equal. Already have that. Some people are worth killing. This is all the same eugenics stuff. And now you’re born as either somebody who moves us forward or somebody who moves us back. When you know eugenics, when you know the history, you know that that’s exactly how it started with Margaret Sanger.”

Watch the video of Gore’s comments below:

Glenn went into further detail on this story when he came back at the start of the second hour of radio. Below is the transcript of that segment:

GLENN: I would like to be less definitive and more exploratory on this Al Gore statement that I find unbelievably shocking. He was on MSNBC and he’s talking about the human makeup, and I’m sorry but I have heard this language before. This is the language of eugenics.

PAT: Margaret Sanger.

GLENN: Margaret Sanger.

PAT: This is ‑‑ and what’s‑his‑face, George Bernard Shaw.

GLENN: Get the George Bernard Shaw audio too ready, will you?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: If you don’t know, the progressives are the ones who came up with eugenics, and you have to excuse some of them in the early 1900s because science had just ‑‑ you know, in 1870, 1880, you had people like Edison saying there’s no reason to wire everybody’s houses with anything but DC battery power, you know, DC electricity because you’ll never have anything in your house that is electric really except for lights. I mean, even Edison didn’t see what was coming. Within ten or fifteen years, the whole world had begun to change and now there was science and that’s where electric shocks came in: Let’s do electric shock therapy. And you had Darwin and all these things were happening all the same time. And Marx. So you had Nietzsche, Marx, electricity, technology. Everything was changing and converging into one. So you had a bright, beautiful tomorrow. You had a beautiful better living through eugenics.

I have the books. Tomorrow ‑‑ or I mean, next week we’ll do a special show on this because I ‑‑ you have to know this history. And in one of them by the guy who, I’m trying to remember his name. Shoot. It’s a phantom, the Phantom Public is the name of the book by Walter Lippmann. Walter Lippmann is extraordinarily loved by the media. He is the father of modern media. He was one of the fathers of CBS and CBS News. He was part of the Wilson administration. Really dangerous guy. He helped put together the Council on Foreign Relations. And in his book called the Phantom Public, he talks about people who are just too stupid and they’ll never get it and they will never ‑‑ they vote and they think they’re doing the right thing but they just don’t know and it’s because ‑‑ because of genetics. Genetics just show that they’ll just never get it, and they’ll continue to push us into the background.

But he’s ‑‑ he talks about how eugenics and scientists are now looking to ways to build the perfect voter, and someday we’ll be able to weed out these genetic flaws in people and we’ll have people who are all progressives. But in the meantime what we’re going to have to do is brainwash and trick some of these people.

This was the great hope of the progressives during the Wilson administration and the Theodore Roosevelt administration from the turn of the century up until it was wildly discredited by the Germans.

We also, I’ll bring in next week, letters from the Nazis to the progressives in California saying, “You brought all this progressive stuff over, you brought all this eugenics stuff; you guys, we can’t thank you enough. May you never forget what you’ve done in Germany because you have now put the state on this track, and the things that we’re going to be able to do because of what you taught us scientifically will never be forgotten.” Oh, that’s true. I mean, we even have ‑‑ we even have signs that say “Never forget.”

They were responsible. It came. These ideas that happened in Nazi Germany came from the progressive movement in the United States of America, secondarily from the Fabian Socialists in England. It was a poison from the West that went east. And there are those who still believe it.

We had a ‑‑ we told you a story of a big lefty in Salon that wrote just last week that all, all men are not created equal. All life is not equal. She said, “Let’s be honest. We all know that a baby is…” she said, “When I was carrying my children, I always knew that was a baby in there. So let’s stop this bogus argument. We all know it’s a baby. Let’s just be up front and let’s use the real argument: All life is not equal.” That goes against everything that Americans used to stand for. But David Barton gave me an extraordinarily wild fact. Does anybody remember last night? I think it was 60% of the American people that voted didn’t know that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, this last November. In exit polls, 60% didn’t know. I mean, how do you win? How does America survive if you don’t even know, not know the Constitution; not know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That is terrifying. So not all people are created equal.

You now have the president through executive order doing studies on who should and who shouldn’t have guns. He’s demonizing anybody who’s on the other side, saying there’s something wrong, and I will not have these people stand in the way of progress. He’s coopting and now controlling our doctors and our hospitals. They have a death panel. It wasn’t in the healthcare bill as we told you at the time; it was in the stimulus package. They are right now having a hard time getting anybody to go on this death panel because those are the people who are going to decide who lives and dies. And if you have an attitude that not all life is created equal, if you are funding death camps by the name of Planned Parenthood, forget about your FEMA camp. Your death camp in America is Planned Parenthood. And you’re funding it. When the world is going towards no value on life and when your world is going towards a place where it’s so egomaniacal, there is no one but them. No one but the individual. No one else matters. “I want mine, Grandma. You had yours. I was promised this.” When you have a world that is so inner twined and in five years from now you will not recognize our society. The beginning of the singularity is already here. The merging of man and machine. The merging of reality and total virtual reality, but a reality you will not be able to tell the difference between.

Stu, do you remember when I said to you back in the Nineties there’s going to come a day where you won’t believe your eyes because they will be able to make any image on camera, any picture? It won’t matter? You could just ‑‑ we’re there now.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Would you agree?

STU: Oh, sure.

GLENN: I’m telling you now you will not be able to tell the difference between virtual reality, real reality sometime down the future, probably within the ‑‑ in the next ten years. That changes everything. All of this technology that is going on right now, do you know who’s teaching ethics on technology? No, that’s not a rhetorical question. We can’t find anyone. They’re not teaching ethics. When it comes to technology, they’re not teaching ethics. And so now Al Gore comes out and he says on NBC for all the world to hear, and if you know anything at all about eugenics, if you know about the early 20th century progressives when Hillary Clinton said she is cut from that cloth, “I am one of the early 20th century progressives,” all eugenics, all Marxist want‑to‑bes, just they’re not Marxists; they just want the Marxist utopia without the revolution. That’s the 20th century progressive, early 20th century progressive. And they’re almost unanimously cheerleaders for eugenics and weeding out the week. If you know anything about that, listen to what Al Gore just said.

GORE: The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, “Wait a minute, not too fast.” And when these natural tendencies are accentuated with political ideologies or for that matter religious factions and the other divides that are sometimes used to ‑‑ for advantage, then it can get out of hand.

GLENN: Can it? And then what do you do? So you are born just only able to understand the future or dragging us back into the past. And then people will put a label on that. You’ll either go into religion or you’ll become a conservative.

PAT: Well, if you’re one of those that are holding us back, of course you’ll go into religion.

GLENN: Yeah. Or conservative.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Otherwise you’re a Democrat, a liberal, and you’re an atheist. You’re a scientist.

STU: I found the story, the study he’s talking about. This is ‑‑ it comes from New Scientist, British weekly scientific magazine. The title: Two Tribes: Are Your Genes Liberal or Conservative. Delves into the research on the formation of political opinions. I remember us talking about the story when it happened because it talks about how conservatives are dogmatic, routine‑loving individuals while liberals come across as free‑spirited and open‑minded.

GLENN: That’s how they come across, yes.

STU: Yeah. According to the emerging data, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. These views are deep‑seeded and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be a liberal is like trying to persuade someone to not have brown eyes. We have to ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, let’s ‑‑ oh. Maybe we should get some twins.

STU: Then it goes on, dogmatic types, more conservative, those who express interest in new experiences tended to be liberals. A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness, which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: And an interest in different cultures.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: People with high openness scores turned out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals.

PAT: Openness? How do you describe liberals as open to anything? They’re not open.

GLENN: They are not open to ‑‑

PAT: ‑‑ anything but their own opinions.

GLENN: You know, can I tell you something?

PAT: That’s it.

GLENN: ‑‑ Penn Jillette is ‑‑ and I’m sorry I keep talking about him but I find him one of the most fascinating men I know. Penn Jillette is just fascinating. When Penn Jillette and I met, and I’ll tell you, I say this over again, I really respect him, blah, blah‑blah, but I think he’s a bigot. Old information. He’s not. He’s not. Penn wrote to me last week, last week or a couple of weeks ago. Because we were ‑‑ we have these fascinating ‑‑ I’d love to do a book just on our e‑mail exchanges.

STU: The Penn and Glenn letters.

GLENN: They are truly remarkable because I’m trying to understand his point of view and he’s trying to understand my point of view I think. And we’re coming back and forth and we have these just all‑day exchanges. I’m not kidding you, one of them was just on that guy in Florida that was having sex on ‑‑ pleasuring himself on a donkey, not in a ‑‑

STU: Right.

GLENN: Okay. And that’s how it started, 8:00 on a Saturday. At the end of the day ‑‑ we just kept going back, you know, about, you know, 300 characters maximum and just keep going back and forth on it. Fascinating. At the end I kind of joked with him. I said, you know, I don’t know if ‑‑ I don’t know if we’re closer or farther apart. I’m not really sure. I have to digest this whole conversation over a very long period of time, I said, but then again I’m a guy who would never be invited to your house. Going back to a reference that he said about the second or third time I met him at CNN and he said to me, you know ‑‑ I said, you’re fascinating. I’d love to get together with you sometime. And he said, I’d love to. He said, of course you’re never coming over to my house. And he was serious. He said, you know, because you’re a religious freak. And he said, I’m never going to have you religious people over. He said it’s like, why would I put a poison in my house? And I was shocked. And I said, boy, I thought, I thought you were a lot of things but I never thought you were a bigot. And he walked away and we’ve always ‑‑ we had for a while still a relationship but it was a weird relation ‑‑ it was terse. He wrote to me and he said, I apologize that I have never told you this, he said, but you changed me. He said, yes, I used to be bigoted against religious people, he said, but you’ve changed me. I’m not. He said, I apologize for all of that and I am sorry and I am trying to fight my closed‑mindedness on anybody that I don’t understand or I don’t agree with. He said, on all fronts. He said, so I apologize. And now he’s become a really, a big defender of people who are religious even though he’s not. And he doesn’t understand it. That’s an open‑minded person. And I’m sorry, that is not ‑‑ he doesn’t call people enemies. That is not a liberal. That is not somebody who says, “You know what? I’m somebody who’s going to, you know, we’ve got to wipe these people out or we’ve got to find out if we can ‑‑ no. I respect them for who they are. Everybody is different. And as long as we try to play nice and I don’t try to shut you down or call you names, you don’t do that to me. We all live together. It’s like a family. Just, there’s billions of us. You live in the house and you all try to get along, even though you don’t agree with each other. We all try to get along. We don’t try to wipe each other out. And I would never as a dad go and say to one of my daughters, “Well, genetically, you know, she’s born like that. She only believes those things and she’s going to fall into a religion” or she’s going to fall into some ‑‑ she will fall into some atheists. If I’m a conservative, she will fall in with some atheists or she will fall into some liberals because she was born that way, you know.” Oh, my gosh. What are we turning into?

Your browser does not support iframes.

There is a major controversy brewing among the Baltimore Ravens cheerleader squad after a cheerleader claimed she was banned from cheering at the Super Bowl because she gained 1.8 pounds. Hopefully there is another reason the public doesn’t know about, because that is truly sad if true. On radio this morning, Glenn put her picture up and joked that the minor weight gain clearly (note: sarcasm) meant she shouldn’t be at the Superbowl. The radio guys spent a lot of time mocking anyone who thought that she wasn’t attractive enough to be in the Superbowl.

Check out her photo below:

Thousands have signed an online petition calling for the Ravens to include 23-year-old Courtney Lenz on their Superbowl roster. The petition claims she was benched for a minor weight gain, and now plans to retire at the end of the season.

Courtney announced she was retiring during the last home game at the end of the season which didn’t go well with the director. She was told she didn’t put in as many appearance hours this season as she did the past 4 yrs while in college. This season she earned her B.S. degree and got a full time job… Bad call. They also stated she struggled with weight on occasion & she had been benched for 2 lb weight gain during a game earlier in the fall, which is a absurd, unhealthy and a complete inaccurate measurement of a woman’s “appearance” and size!

Courtney is beautiful & this organization that is supposedly out there to promote self esteem and healthy body image to millions of young girls and women nationwide has done a big injustice to Courtney & we are outraged! She deserves to be out on the field with her teammates, her family. ​[Emphasis added]

TheBlaze reported:

Lenz admits she found it difficult to juggle her recently-acquired marketing job and her cheerleading duties, putting in fewer hours this year than in the past.

However, she also thinks her seniority and past accomplishments– including an award for doing the most charity events in one season and ranking 57th among the hottest 100 cheerleaders– should counterbalance that.

“I wouldn’t even have reached out and let fans know if I didn’t think it was clearly wrong,” Lenz toldABCNews. “I’m just devastated by the whole situation. …They’ve been really hard on me this year since I told them I was leaving,”

But ABC News also got a statement from the NFL and, unfortunately, you’re simply not “entitled” to go to the Super Bowl.

Your browser does not support iframes.

For all three people in America who want to see Stu swirling around in the Hula Chair, ,this is the story for you. Glenn happened to see the chair in the office and demanded to find out who spent his money on this stupid chair. Stu explained and demonstrated on radio today – it wasn’t pretty.

Your browser does not support iframes.

This morning, as this story unfolded, TheBlaze asked you to imagine the following scene:

A handful of union bosses crowd around an old card table, punching numbers into their calculators. They’ve been up all night. Someone puts on another pot of coffee and a few of the older bosses are starting to fall asleep. Those who are still alert and active scratch their heads and re-enter their calculations.

“Oh, my gosh!” one of them shouts, concluding the all-night exercise. “‘Obamacare’ is going to cost us!”

Yes, according to a recent report from the Wall Street Journal, union leaders (i.e. the same people who campaigned tirelessly in favor of universal healthcare) are trying to figure out a way to avoid paying for the costs associated with “Obamacare.”

Yes, the union bosses who have so enthusiastically supported President Obama over the past five years are allegedly having a change of heart. Despite having backed the president’s health care overall, now that the law is rolling out it seems that some are turning sour.

Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.

Union leaders say many of the law’s requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.

To offset that, the nation’s largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance.

In early talks, the Obama administration dismissed the idea of applying the subsidies to people in union-sponsored plans, according to officials from the trade group, the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, that represents these insurance plans.

“Here’s the point of the story: The point of the story is these labor unions that knew,” Glenn said candidly. “They helped design it [Obamacare].”

“They knew full well. Anybody knew. These guys are supposed to be in the business world. If you don’t run from your labor union at this point, if you actually believe that they didn’t know, you are beyond help,” Glenn added.

What this means is, all of the union members who have been paying dues to be protected and well insured are out of luck. They’re going to be dumped into the federal pool.

“Congratulations. Teamsters, AFL‑CIO, you are the first to be dumped into universal healthcare,” Glenn said.

At this point, there isn’t that much that America can do to repeal the bill, however, there are still ways to stop it. Glenn mentioned the one thing that you can do is go to BlockExchanges.com.

“This is your last line of defense,” Glenn told listeners. “These exchanges have to be done by the states. The states have to put these exchanges in, and if they put these exchanges in, you’re done. If they don’t, there’s a chance that it all falls apart.”

There are already 26 states that say they will not put these exchanges into effect.

“There are so many intended and unintended consequences from this Affordable Care Act, it’s unbelievable,” Pat said. “It is crushing capitalism, it is taking away choice, it is raising costs, it is driving medical device companies out of business.”

“If you are a member of the union, your unions were involved,” Glenn said. “Do not let them convince you that they didn’t know — everybody knew.”

“You have to get out of the labor union,” Glenn emphasized. “You have to destroy them before they destroy you. And they will. And they’re only going to get stronger because the economy is going to get worse.

Your browser does not support iframes.

Glenn has enjoyed mocking the Constitution hating, gun control fanatic Piers Morgan over his ever dwindling ratings, and today was no exception.

“Believe it or not, it’s earth shattering, it is strong, and it is serious,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “Piers Morgan has been beaten by RuPaul.”

Yes, that’s right, RuPaul’s Drag Race, which airs at 9PM on Logo TV, won the ratings race against CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight on Monday. While Morgan’s audience numbers always pale in comparison to the infinitely more popular Hannity on Fox News and Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, the loss to RuPaul and Logo represents a new low for CNN.

“Couple of things,” Glenn said. “One, I have never heard of Logo TV. Two, who knew RuPaul was still alive?”

After trying to figure out the last time RuPaul was relevant (they settled on the early 1990s), Glenn, Pat, and Stu got back to talking about the real issue at hand – the impending doom of Piers Morgan at CNN.

“On Logo, when [Morgan’s] on CNN and they are up against each other at 9:00 Eastern: 565,000 viewers to 545,000,” Pat said. “That’s a death knell for Piers Morgan.”

Earlier in the week, Glenn talked about how Morgan managed to take Anderson Cooper’s 8PM ET victories over MSNBC and turn them into major losses (by the hundreds of thousands) during the 9PM hour. Given all the recent shakeups at CNN, being creamed in the ratings by a little-known cable network is probably not the best way to keep your job.

“Okay. Let’s have a pool,” Glenn said. “He’s gone within 30 days.”

Pat and Stu weren’t so sure the plug would be pulled on Morgan that fast.

“I say within a year,” Pat said. “They will give it time to see if it marinates.”

“Now see, my thing is, though, you have a new, like, executive regime that comes in,” Stu added. “You’ve got to make the move to the right person. You’re excused for Piers Morgan sucking for a while.”

But Glenn wasn’t convinced. “No. Look, here’s what’s happening with Piers Morgan. Piers Morgan is saying it’s over, I’m going to be a laughing stock,” Glenn said. “And he’s falling on his sword right now and what he’s saying is I’m going to fall on my sword on this gun control thing and that way I can come out and the uber-left will embrace me because I’m going to say, ‘I took on the gun lobby and they were too powerful…’”

Regardless of the timing of Morgan’s impending doom, at least Jeff Zucker knows he has a potential backup.

“Have you seen RuPaul’s show yet,” Glenn asked.

“Seriously,” Stu concluded, “RuPaul could probably pull in some numbers better than Piers.”

Your browser does not support iframes.

Tonight on The Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and David Barton hosted a “Foundations in Freedom,” tackling the history of abuse of power and executive orders. How has Obama’s use of the executive order compared to past Presidents? And how does his use of executive order compare to past presidents? You might be surprised.

Glenn explained that when the president makes a pitch to the people of America and is unable to sway the polls, he has two options.

1. Accept that the American people aren’t interested and move on, or
2. Jam it through with an executive order.

“Expect a whole lot more of these executive orders in the coming four years,” Glenn told his audience. “And expect their reach to be profound. And anytime you complain about it you’re going to hear somebody say, ‘George W. Bush issued 291 executive orders’.”

And they’re right.

The truth is, more executive order were issued in the first term of George W. Bush’s presidency than in Barack Obama’s.

The founders allowed executive orders, but most don’t even really know what their original purpose was meant to be. If you understand the history and origin of the executive order, they become much less ‘dictator-like’.

Are they currently being used the way that was intended? Have they by past presidents? Once you know that during George Washington’s time as president he only issue eight executive orders, you should have a pretty good guess.

Watch the clips from tonight’s show for more:

Your browser does not support iframes.

Your browser does not support iframes.

MSNBC just doesn’t care anymore. They’ve completely let go of themselves and it’s an ugly scene as they hit another new low in deceptive editing. This time they used a 100% cordial, respectful exchange between 2nd amendment supporters and the father of a Sandy Hook victim to vilify supporters of gun rights as hecklers. Did they heckle?

Glenn certainly thought Bashir has selectively edited the tape to serve his story.

“Martin Bashir’s story is how rude this audience was and how they started to heckle him,” Glenn said. “They haven’t heckled. They haven’t said anything. Martin Bashir, liar.”

In the clip that aired on Bashir’s program, the audience was shown to be maliciously yelling out pro-second amendment remarks as he is talking about why people need to have assault weapons. But in reality, the remarks came when he asked the audience a direct question.

“I ask if there is anyone who is in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have done of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high capacity clips?” Neil Heslin asked. After a pause he said, “Not one person can answer the question.”

Only after this comment did some in the audience vocalize their support of the Second Amendment. “The Second Amendment shall not be infringed,” one man yelled.

Heslin, the father of a Sandy Hook victim, spoke for fifteen minutes without being interrupted and people only spoke up at the very end of his remarks.

MSNBC is reportedly “reviewing” the situation after it aired a selectively-edited video that appeared to show the father of a Newtown, Conn. shooting victim being heckled during a legislative hearing — even after replacing the clip in a story on its website.

MSNBC host Martin Bashir aired the edited video on his show Monday with an audience member shouting, “the Second Amendment shall not be infringed!” during the testimony of Neil Heslin, father of Sandy Hook first-grade victim Jesse Lewis, at a Connecticut hearing.

Omitted from the video was Heslin asking, “why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.” He added after a pause, “Not one person can answer the question,” at which point the audience reacted.